Talk:Cornus

Etymology

I question the accuracy of this statement recently added:

It is called "dog" because of its deemed uselessness to human (not edible or lumber).

Dogwood was a highly prized wood for making the shuttles of looms; for tool handles, and other items that required a very hard and strong wood. Pollinator 12:34, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's from OED. Dogwood's etymology says, "see dog-tree". Dog-tree says "see Dog-berry". Dog-berry says "See dog, definition 21". And Definition 21 says "applied to plants...unworthy to humans..inedible...". Etymology doesn't always (or usually) makes sense. That's why I intentionally used the adjective "deemed". It's an antiquated POV. --Menchi 19:34, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interesting...thanks. Pollinator 00:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Two reputable sources I checked give the derivation as from dag wood, a dag being a wooden skewer, as in a dagger - MPF 22:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice to know the "reputable sources". The OED's listings are as above (and incidentally the earliest attestations of both dog-berry and dog-berry tree predate the first attestation of dogwood by more than two generations). There seems to be no such recorded form as dagwood, in this sense (only as Dagwood sandwich). Dag itself seems to refer to various pointed things (among much else), but is not quoted anywhere as being a synonym of spit or skewer.Alsihler (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A possible origin of the name "Dogwood" might be from the Italian (originally Latin) name for a stave of wood - "Doga" since the wood has been deemed good for bow-making.

I used to burn twigs and branches from a dogwood tree occasionally in a backyard barbecue and became convinced that the name comes from the smell of the burning wood, which smells exactly like dog shit.

The first line in the wiki mentions its "distinctive bark". It would be GREAT to have a picture of that bark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.72.18 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I suspect that entire sentence is a long-standing joke (playing on dog/bark). The source given does mention blossoms, berries and bark, but I wouldn't consider the bark very distinctive. The flowers are distinctive, as are torn leaves. Plantdrew (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pollination

Menchi posed this question on the page. I moved it here, at least temporarily: It is (ususually?) beetle-pollinated.

I have been curious about dogwood pollination for many years. The flowers are typically very barren of any insect activity, so it must yield little nectar. In many years I have never seen a beetle on a dogwood blossom, so it must also be pollen-poor. Rarely, I see andrena bees and skippers visit the blossoms. Once (and it was notable because it was only once in many years of observation) I saw a honeybee working the blossoms. It could well be that they are self fertile and maybe even self pollinating, considering the rarity of insect activity. I will continue to watch (they are blooming right now). Pollinator 13:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Any possibility it could be night-flying insects? - MPF 22:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My question is not whether dogwood is bettle-pollinated, but if it's usually so. It does happen. Biology of Plants by Raven et al (6th ed) says "The flowers of beetle-pollinated plants are either large and borne singly...or small and aggregated in an inflorescene, such as those of dogwoods, elders, spiraeas, and many species of the parsley family." (page 531). I have flowering dogwoods in my neighbourhood but almost never seen any beetles here. So I cannot attest to frequency of such pollination either. --Menchi 06:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ridiculous move

Some fool has turned Dogwood into a disambiguation page, in order to accomodate some punk band in LA. Thus ever reference to a dogwood will have to be linked as Dogwood (plant). Too many twelve-year olds at Wikipedia. --16:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) {unsigned by User:Wetman (Niteowlneils 17:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))}

Agreed wholeheartedly. Let's get it put back, a.s.a.p. I'll do what I can, but suspect it'll need admin assistance. - MPF 16:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not "promotion", my intent was not vandalism, and attacks against my age are childish. Dogwood (the band) should be included in Wikipedia, as they are a very influential Christian punk band. It seemed to me that the best way to add the band would be by adding a stub band page, adding a disambig page, fixing the link to the plant, and then fleshing out the band page. I apologize if I was wrong in these steps, but there's no need to be rude. Jpers36 17:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you were wrong. The simple fact is that the term "dogwood," used to mean a plant, is much more common than the same word, used to mean a Christian punk band -- no matter how influential you say it is. By the way, Jpers36, I checked out your page on the band, and you might want to include a few more sources if you want people to actually believe that the band is influential. You can't just write that and hope that people believe it. (Also, a quick grammatical note for Jpers36: commas and periods are always placed inside of quotation marks.) ask123 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia

The Australian dogwood- is not, as far as I can tell, a dogwood, it's an Acacia or something very similar.--nixie 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fable of the Dogwood is not Apocrypha

The Fable of the Dogwood is not Apocrypha, as someone noted in an edit to that section. Apocrypha are scriptural writings that are not in the Biblical canon. This is not a scriptural writing (as far as I know) and is not listed among New Testament apocrypha. Therefore, I conclude that it is merely a fable. If curious, see the fable article. Cheers, ask123 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.answers.com/apocrypha&r=67 apocrypha = "Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity." originally the word was used for things that were not for general circulation and later was used for when statements or writings were regarded as of doubtful origin, false or spurious, and only after the 5th century did it take on a meaning in relationship to the non-canonical books of the bible. This happened after Jerome erroneously used the word to describe those books. Hardyplants 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want apocrypha to mean that here, then you shouldn't link to the Wikipedia article, Apocrypha, that primarily describes the word in relation to Christian scripture (it mentions the other definition as a sidenote). Also, the dogwood story goes beyond "questionable authorship or authenticity." There is no question of authenticity here. With George Washington and the cherry tree, for instance (used as an example on the Wiki apocrypha page), there was a question of authenticity. But, this story entirely strains credulity, placing it outside the boundaries of apocrypha. It is entirely absurd and inconceivable (without a total suspension of disbelief). Also, I think there is a tendency to overuse the word apocrypha to describe any and all Christian stories of this nature. Just because it's commonly done, does not mean it's correct. Cheers, ask123 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The story is apocrypha because it has a hidden meaning, namely the change in the morphology of the Dogwood that is revealed in the story, the story was never taken as real...its in reality a teaching story or vehicle used to illustrate the Crucifixion, I suppose those ignorant of this type of illustration would worry about the "truthfulness" of the story. Hardyplants 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the definition of apocrypha says nothing about hidden meaning and has nothing to do with hidden meaning. Apocrypha, when not relating to Christian scripture, refers to a story of questionable authorship or authenticity. Therefore, to be apocrypha according to the dictionary definition (not a colloquial usage definition), it must adhere to the aforementioned limitation of being credulous. To be questionable, a story must be, at the very least, credulous. If it wasn't, it would simply be unbelievable.

Of course this story is a teaching vehicle, as is story of Washington and the cherry tree. The key point, though, is that some teaching stories come from true events, while others come from fictional myths, fables, etc. There are many teaching stories, whose premises are credulous. And some of those credulous stories turn out to be of questionable authenticity -- these are apocrypha. The dogwood story, however, is clearly (without a doubt) made-up. As you note, perhaps someone ignorant to this type of narrative vehicle (or a young child) might take it as true. But that would be an exceptional case. The point here is that I made the edit based on the dicitonary definition of the word. ask123 21:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is called the "legend of the Dogwood"; lets stick with what the sources use, instead of creating a new name for the story. 18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article is intiarly stupid!!! He/ she are telling of how, in the first paragraph, Jesus changed the dogwood tree so that it would no longer be used "for the construction of crosses." In the second paragraph, though, he/ she says "the modern dogwood is typically too small and twisted in trunk and branch for such a task as cross construction." Duh!!! And even more of a DUH is when they say "although the point of the story is that it isn't good for cross construction anymore." FIX IT if you don't want to look STUPID. 74.242.105.47 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! I guess it takes one to point a finger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.103.209 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

discolored leaves

The dogwood trees have a brownish green leaf appearence as if they are dying, also looks as if bugs are eating on them. What would be good to treat and try and save these trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.87.252 (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization problem

Dogwood is not a proper noun. It should be lowercased throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyharrison (talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South

The section concerning the connection between the American South and the dogwood as a symbol of racism needs editing. There is such a small amount of information in this section that there either needs to be someone willing to say more about the connection or it needs to be deleted.

Can I eat the red fruits of dogwoods?

"Some dogwoods produce larger fruits than others, and some are tasty and some are not. The fruits of our native flowering dogwood, Cornus florida, are not poisonous, but they do not have a very pleasing flavor. The Chinese dogwood, Cornus kousa, has spherical fruits about the size of a quarter. When ripe in midsummer, they turn coral red and develop their full flavor and sweetness, with a flavor comparable to some melons. The cornelian cherry, Cornus mas, produces a tart, elongated fruit with a hard pit in the middle and a thin layer of flesh. These bright red fruits are sometimes used to make preserves, jam, or jelly with a flavor similar to cherries."
source: www.usna.usda.gov/Gardens/faqs/dogwoodfaq2.html -96.233.30.86 (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Legend part should be removed

I'm sorry but I just don't think this "Christian Legend" section belongs here at all. I don't think it satisfies the standards of verifiability. The two sources sited are just some peoples' web pages. No academic sources are sited. Nothing written by a historian, or even a theologian or professor of Christian literature. For all we know, this is just another story that gets sent around as an email forward. I mean seriously, for us to entertain the idea that this be even considered a legend, shouldn't there be some evidence that this story even existed lets say 200 years ago. And I'm being lenient with 200 years considering Jesus died over 2000 years ago. Would someone with more Wikipedia experience than I have consider deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freespeechpatriot (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's a cultural tale predominantly told in the south. I grew up being told that the red on the four edges of the flower around easter represent Christ's crucifixion and resurrection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this reference is germane to the fullest description of the subject. Soltera Soltera (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soltera (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pictures for distinction

It would be nice to have pictures and discussion to distinguish dogwood from forsythia. Yes, I know this is incredibly ingnorant, but at this time of the year, I am realizing that the confusion is really common. Will post the same at forsythia. DavidOaks (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forsythia? Can you post an example? Tell two seem quite different. Soltera (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Soltera (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dogwood locations

I'm wondering why dogwoods are common in the southeastern USA, but I have not seen one at all in California. Do they need a lot of water or is there another reason the tree is not in coastal California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.20.229 (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several species of dogwoods (genus Cornus) native to California. You have to be in the right habitat to find them-there are large parts of the state without native dogwoods, including, generally, the drier habitats (Central Valley, deserts, much of southern California). Cornus nuttallii and Cornus sericea are 2 examples. 47.208.147.40 (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Cornus

I propose this page be renamed to Cornus. To me it is clear this page would fit better there. I'm also proposing the following move to make room for this page: Cornus → Cornus (disambiguation) --MCEllis (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current, updated genus for dogwood is Benthamidia. I suggest a change. 152.10.249.208 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826114742/http://forestry.answers.com/tree-identification/tree-identification-notable-characteristics-of-dogwood-trees to http://forestry.answers.com/tree-identification/tree-identification-notable-characteristics-of-dogwood-trees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]